American Says HSUS IS “Animal Rights”

Join Crusade Against HSUS+Anti-Pet Laws+Pass It Forward!—–>

Read it and affirm, that The American Lawyer, a well-known online attorney site,  states CLEARLY that HSUS is an *ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP*.

Read it and see the truth, as to HSUS receiving over 10,000 FREE hours of time (pro Bono) from newer lawyers. That’s  over 10,000 hr. of billable  time HSUS did not have to pay for! That’s 3.52 SOLID YEARS OF 8HR/DAY OF LEGAL WORK FOR ABSOLUTELY FREE. At $200/hr, that’s  $2,054,600.00 of legal time given to ANIMAL RIGHTS, for FREE,  folks.

[ Pet Defense did not write the article below, it was written for The American Lawyer online by the author stated below.]


Petland Discounts: Pro Bono Work for Animal Rights Skyrockets

The American Lawyer

By Zach Lowe [link to American Lawyer online]

February 19, 2009

When Bruce Wagman of Schiff Hardin told management at one of his first law jobs that he wanted to do pro bono work in the area of animal law, the firm told him that wasn’t an option. So Wagman left.

Flash forward more than a decade, and animal law has become one of the fastest-growing areas of study in the U.S., with nearly 100 courses available to law school students (just nine schools offered such courses in 2000) and more high-profile litigation than ever.

Now, statistics from 2008 show that Am Law firms contributed a record number of pro bono hours to the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, two of the country’s leading animal rights organizations–and those that pursue litigation most aggressively. (A third, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, did not respond to repeated requests for comparable figures and interviews.) 

In 2008 major firms contributed 10,273 pro bono hours to the Humane Society, up from about 6,500 in 2007. The Animal Legal Defense Fund doesn’t track pro bono work by the hour, but the organization signed up 113 new volunteer attorneys–a record, and a jump from 98 in 2007 and just 63 in 2006.

“Lawyers are cold calling me,” says Wagman, the ALDF’s general outside counsel. “I don’t have to solicit anyone.”

Elizabeth Day, a partner at DLA Piper, was one of those who called Wagman out of the blue last year after hearing him discuss dogfighting on National Public Radio, both lawyers say. Day called him at Schiff and asked if he would speak to a group of interested lawyers at DLA, she says. Now, the firm has about two dozen associates (plus Day) working on pro bono matters that range from the rescue of a group of chimps from a troubled Texas facility to creating corporations that could file civil suits against organizations for mistreating animals. (Individuals who say they observe mistreatment of animals often have traditionally had trouble proving the standing necessary to file litigation.)

“I thought it would be a great way to get our lawyers involved,” Day says.

Neither organization released the names of the firms that do the most pro bono work, though Wagman complimented DLA, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Morrison & Foerster for their increased commitment to animal rights.

Wagman says the more lawyers learn about animal rights, the more they want to get involved.

That’s one reason for the jump in pro bono work, says Eric Bernthal, a partner at Latham & Watkins and a board member with the Humane Society. (Latham is the only firm the Humane Society would name among its major contributors.)

Other factors Bernthal cites for the pro bono jump: the Humane Society’s commitment to litigation and an increase in time available to attorneys to pursue such efforts due to the down economy.

“Certainly, there’s less work now with commercial clients,” Bernthal says, which, in turns, provides “more capacity” for the pro bono work.

One example of the kind of matter being taken on: Latham is counsel to the Humane Society in a case that may head to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court threw out the conviction of a Virginia man for selling videos of dogfights. The appellate court in effect overturned a law, passed in 1999, that bans people from distributing videos and other depictions of an animal cruelty, a law First Amendment gurus consider troublesome. Both the government and the Humane Society have asked the  Supreme Court to take the case.

Something else that makes the Humane Society and the ALDF attractive clients is they avoid most of the extreme stances and practices that some animal rights groups are known for, Bernthal says.

“I may not be a vegetarian, but I can still agree that a calf shouldn’t live its entire life in an enclosure so small it can’t turn around,” he says. Whatever the reason, Wagman and Jonathan Lovvorn, the Humane Society’s general counsel and vice president, are happy for the increased pro bono interest.  “Animal law is flourishing,” Wagman says. “People are starting to discover that these groups bring really interesting cases.” [*all emphasis added]


Petdefense: It is nearly unanimous with con law professors that the specific law used against  Stevens (of the education based dogfight videos, where Stevens did not create the video) would not pass constitutional muster.  The con law profs were correct. HSUS’ amicus brief along with the Obama admin’s thinking— was thrown to the wayside.


This is supposed to be a FREE country, but when Animal Rights pretends to be something else, using the ploy that they are saving our own pets, our own animals, YET at every turn are, instead, making laws to take away the RIGHT to show, breed, sell, buy or trade such animals, then we have a problem Houston.

AND THAT PROBLEM IS  KNOWN— AS H$US.  HSUS is being sued with other  AR groups, for RICO violations, after a Fed Judge found that they had paid a Plaintiff for up to NINE (9) years, to be the Plaintiff and testify in an elephant case. The case was thrown out, thus paving the way for the RICO violations case to proceed.

But HSUS and friends wasted 9 years of the courts time, and 5 years on discovery time. Further, HSUS had Plaintiffs sue Petland and Hunte, Inc. (in AZ) and that case was thrown out as to Hunte, Inc. with  29 of 31 claims thrown out as to Petland. It is likely the two remaining claims will also be thrown out down the line.  It is HSUS that SOLICITED FOR PLAINTIFFS by making a snag a breeder and snag an anything in order to gain Plaintiffs.  People need to understand that AR groups like HSUS are in existence to put animals out of the reach of people, period.

One thought on “American Says HSUS IS “Animal Rights”

  1. July 24, 2009
    Dear Animal Rights Friends,
    On June 5, 2009, my dog, Buddy, broke his worn out cable when he jumped off my porch when a guy past by that usually taunts him. My dog scratched the guys arm and his nails left two slight punctures on his hand, requiring no stitches.
    The ordinance in my city (Sioux City, Iowa) is a one strike death penalty. The law requires Animal Control to ‘deem the dog vicious’ when they are called to pick up the animal. The owner has 10 days to appeal the ‘vicious animal’ determination or the dog will be euthanized.
    Naturally, I appealed and went through the first level hearing with a hearing officer that told me that he is not allowed to take into consideration the circumstances or the severity of the incident. He also told me that he does not check with Animal Control for a report on the dog’s behavior while in their care. And he told me that if I am not happy with his determination to uphold Animal Controls decision to ‘deem the dog vicious’, I could appeal to the next level hearing officer. So, that is what I did. I appealed for the next level hearing.
    In the meantime, a dog belonging to one of our city councilmen, was involved in a similar incident and was ‘deemed vicious’. He found himself in the same situation as me and my dog, going through the appeals process. I spoke with the councilman, while he and his children were visiting their dog at Animal Control. He told me that there was nothing that he could do about this flawed ordinance because his dog is in the appeals process.
    So, I went to the council meeting and asked that they consider adding an amendment to the ordinance that would redefine the criteria for ‘deeming an animal vicious.’ They insisted that my request could not be considered because the ordinance is fine the way it is.
    During the next couple of weeks, this situation drew a great deal of attention from the public and the council finally admitted that the ordinance is flawed and needs to be amended, however, the three dogs that are involved in the flawed process now, will have to be euthanized because it would not be fair to the people who had to have their dogs euthanized since the law was passed in March of 2008. They also said that since one of the councilmen is now in the appeals process that it would look like favoritism if they were to fix the flawed ordinance and save his dog, Jake, a yellow Lab.
    To fast forward to today, all three dogs have been through both appeals and lost. The councilman and the owner of the Great Dane, Keno, have given up and are signing their dogs over to be euthanized. I am not giving up and am working on filing the third appeal with the civil court.
    The reason that I am writing to you today is because I am a senior citizen on a fixed income and am finding it difficult to find legal representation. I really need advice on how to proceed.
    I love my dog so very much and really want to bring him back home. This law is totally unfair to the animal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s